The last time I saw the proposal for that it was a $10 trillion dollar project that would take 100 years to construct and over a quarter century of the world's entire steel production.
The problem is that this idea could NOT be made to work. Geostationary orbit is over 22,000 miles above the surface. Even highly precise lasers, (which themselves would be unsuitable for launching), spread out so that by the time they reach the moon (one order of magnitude further) they are approximately 2.5 miles wide.
What this means is that to visibly illuminate an area, not only are you dealing with the idea that you need to outshine local light sources, but you ALSO need to compensate for the fact that your energy is being spread out over an area of a quarter mile or so.
If you are talking about 10W/m^2, which is ludicrously low, you're talking over 1.6 MW per laser pulse just to make the light visible over a sixteenth of a square mile (a square one quarter mile on each side). This assumes NO efficiency problems and no loss due to interference, cloud cover or the atmosphere.
Why do you expect people to give an idea that is literally impossible with current technology, (even current LAB technology), a serious shake? This idea is good for a laugh, and nothing else.
Current trends? The birthrate has been 2.1 since the 80s. In Europe they are already experiencing net population loss without immigration figured in.
Everything I said is true and nothing you said really affects it. Immigration is the only current, annual source of net population increase in the United States and much of Europe.
Space is a construct of the dimensions our universe exists in. We observe three dimensions of space because our universe exists in all three dimensions.
As well, our universe exists in other dimensions, that we don't entirely understand, but have various theories about (like M-Brane theory).
But this is the answer to your question (as I understand it): what is outside the Universe is by definition irrelevant. It exists outside of the realm of our reality. It could be swiss cheese, it could be water, it could be a vacuum. The concept of what is outside of the universe is irrelevant because from our perspective there is no outside.
Our time AND our space are defined by the universe we inhabit, and thus any attempt to "leave" the Universe would almost surely render our existence moot.
If the idea of the Universe expanding in size is difficult to swallow, given that we don't think it's really expanding into anything, think about it as if the entire contents of the universe were simply shrinking in size, relative to the space between them. That doesn't properly model the effects we see, but as a concept it's easier to grasp that as an analogy for the universe expanding into extra-dimensional space.
Basically, the Universe is like a bag of holding folded into itself.;)
For the Americans, I suppose it would be akin to federal government taking full control of the state of Texas and disposing of state powers or something like that.
In the US that would instantly result in civil war and secession. The Federal Government would have to invalidate the Constitution to do so, which would in effect void the contract the states signed with the Federal Government.
I don't know if there's an analogous situation in the US, because the people here view this sort of thing in a much more black-and-white, free-or-oppressed manner.
They took the Gigabyte board with the same series number among the various sockets for the best performance comparison... I don't think that's bias at all.
Actually, according to this article over at TechReport ( http://techreport.com/articles.x/18448/17 ) the system price (figuring in mobo costs) for AMD procs tends to be higher per unit of performance.
Perhaps. To each his own. I'm leaning towards a Core i7-860 myself, because it performs about 90% as well as the $1000 Intel procs for only $280, and I plan on only upgrading my computer every 5-6 years... that is, I'm replacing a 6 year old computer now, that's been more than adequate because I put in just an extra $100 when I bought it, and it has been a net saver of money.
Especially since the series numbers don't track perfectly with performance.
For instance the Core i7-870 has better performance than the Core i7-920, but the 920 uses a socket type that will be future compatible with Intel's next set of chips.
As for the video card... get a Raedeon 4790. It's about 90% of the 5850 for $200.
Also, don't forget: Lynnfield core Intel's are dual-channel for RAM and Bloomfields are tri-channel.
At the moment, because of pricepoint and such, there's no reason to get any AMD proc. A Core i5-750 is better processor for the money than any AMD proc, and if you need the extra performance of a high end AMD, a Core i7-860 is pretty much the best value proc on the market today.
I'm quite proud of Google as well... because they seem to be going to extraordinary lengths to be a complete pain in the ass the Chinese government on the issue. Not to spite the Chinese, but to make them "play fair".
Google seemed to realize that until someone made a HUGE fuss over it the status quo would never change.
In the United States, it it legal to take photographs of anything visible from a publicly owned space. As long as you stand on the publicly owned space, ANYTHING YOU SEE can be photographed legally. Additionally, in the United States, as soon as you photograph something YOU (the photographer) own a unique copyright on that photo.
This case completely ignored the copyrights of the photographer, who correctly owns the IP to the PHOTO, but not the monument.
One of the things that REALLY bugs me about climate research is seeing LEGITIMATE scientists use the word "SKEPTIC" as a SMEAR.
Scientists are SUPPOSED to be skeptic, and I understand that this is not what the phrase is meant to convey, but the mere idea of labeling a scientists "skeptic" to smear him shows how political scientists in general have become. Remember when they were all about the pursuit of truth and knowledge?
I guess it sounds better than "denier", (which sounds like some McCarthy-era witch-hunt-ism), but why can't scientists keep their professionalism in situations which become politicized?
I found the claim that Opera was "catching up" in the summary spurious at best. Many of the features that Firefox has were developed first by the Opera team, including tabs.
It really is incredible. One company decided to take a hit on their stock price in order to do what they knew was better in the long run. Maybe not for them, but for the industry and the world in general.
And as a matter of posture, they knew that being loud and public would force the two governments to directly confront each other over the issue.
Slashdot Mirror
SJ talks about patents in Theora and your reaction is that you feel anger towards people with more wealth than you?
What do those two things even have to do with each other?
How can you possibly think Bush is a worse president than, for instance, FDR?
FDR's mistakes were not only PROVEABLY malicious, but are still the root cause of many problems we feel today, almost a century later.
Trans-Atlantic high-speed rail?
The last time I saw the proposal for that it was a $10 trillion dollar project that would take 100 years to construct and over a quarter century of the world's entire steel production.
The problem is that this idea could NOT be made to work. Geostationary orbit is over 22,000 miles above the surface. Even highly precise lasers, (which themselves would be unsuitable for launching), spread out so that by the time they reach the moon (one order of magnitude further) they are approximately 2.5 miles wide.
What this means is that to visibly illuminate an area, not only are you dealing with the idea that you need to outshine local light sources, but you ALSO need to compensate for the fact that your energy is being spread out over an area of a quarter mile or so.
If you are talking about 10W/m^2, which is ludicrously low, you're talking over 1.6 MW per laser pulse just to make the light visible over a sixteenth of a square mile (a square one quarter mile on each side). This assumes NO efficiency problems and no loss due to interference, cloud cover or the atmosphere.
Why do you expect people to give an idea that is literally impossible with current technology, (even current LAB technology), a serious shake? This idea is good for a laugh, and nothing else.
Current trends? The birthrate has been 2.1 since the 80s. In Europe they are already experiencing net population loss without immigration figured in.
Everything I said is true and nothing you said really affects it. Immigration is the only current, annual source of net population increase in the United States and much of Europe.
Because our birthrate is the replacement rate of 2.1 children per fertile adult. All of our population growth is immigration.
Don't tell that to the US, or Europe, because we all reached a naturally occurring population equilibrium about 20 years ago.
My understanding is this:
;)
Space is a construct of the dimensions our universe exists in. We observe three dimensions of space because our universe exists in all three dimensions.
As well, our universe exists in other dimensions, that we don't entirely understand, but have various theories about (like M-Brane theory).
But this is the answer to your question (as I understand it): what is outside the Universe is by definition irrelevant. It exists outside of the realm of our reality. It could be swiss cheese, it could be water, it could be a vacuum. The concept of what is outside of the universe is irrelevant because from our perspective there is no outside.
Our time AND our space are defined by the universe we inhabit, and thus any attempt to "leave" the Universe would almost surely render our existence moot.
If the idea of the Universe expanding in size is difficult to swallow, given that we don't think it's really expanding into anything, think about it as if the entire contents of the universe were simply shrinking in size, relative to the space between them. That doesn't properly model the effects we see, but as a concept it's easier to grasp that as an analogy for the universe expanding into extra-dimensional space.
Basically, the Universe is like a bag of holding folded into itself.
In the US that would instantly result in civil war and secession. The Federal Government would have to invalidate the Constitution to do so, which would in effect void the contract the states signed with the Federal Government.
I don't know if there's an analogous situation in the US, because the people here view this sort of thing in a much more black-and-white, free-or-oppressed manner.
That would be great if they used the same socket for that long.
They took the Gigabyte board with the same series number among the various sockets for the best performance comparison... I don't think that's bias at all.
Actually, according to this article over at TechReport ( http://techreport.com/articles.x/18448/17 ) the system price (figuring in mobo costs) for AMD procs tends to be higher per unit of performance.
( See this chart: http://techreport.com/r.x/cpu-roundup-2010q1/value-perf-bar-sysprices.gif )
Perhaps. To each his own. I'm leaning towards a Core i7-860 myself, because it performs about 90% as well as the $1000 Intel procs for only $280, and I plan on only upgrading my computer every 5-6 years... that is, I'm replacing a 6 year old computer now, that's been more than adequate because I put in just an extra $100 when I bought it, and it has been a net saver of money.
The Core i5-750 is only $200. If you're not willing to spend $200 on your CPU, you have no business building a PC instead of buying one.
If you're interested, I have a Google Wave where I'm building my new PC. I can add you so that you can see my research, just send me an email.
Especially since the series numbers don't track perfectly with performance.
For instance the Core i7-870 has better performance than the Core i7-920, but the 920 uses a socket type that will be future compatible with Intel's next set of chips.
As for the video card... get a Raedeon 4790. It's about 90% of the 5850 for $200.
Also, don't forget: Lynnfield core Intel's are dual-channel for RAM and Bloomfields are tri-channel.
At the moment, because of pricepoint and such, there's no reason to get any AMD proc. A Core i5-750 is better processor for the money than any AMD proc, and if you need the extra performance of a high end AMD, a Core i7-860 is pretty much the best value proc on the market today.
I read somewhere recently that unsourced claims and statistics rarely convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you.
I'm quite proud of Google as well... because they seem to be going to extraordinary lengths to be a complete pain in the ass the Chinese government on the issue. Not to spite the Chinese, but to make them "play fair".
Google seemed to realize that until someone made a HUGE fuss over it the status quo would never change.
In the United States, it it legal to take photographs of anything visible from a publicly owned space. As long as you stand on the publicly owned space, ANYTHING YOU SEE can be photographed legally. Additionally, in the United States, as soon as you photograph something YOU (the photographer) own a unique copyright on that photo.
This case completely ignored the copyrights of the photographer, who correctly owns the IP to the PHOTO, but not the monument.
One of the things that REALLY bugs me about climate research is seeing LEGITIMATE scientists use the word "SKEPTIC" as a SMEAR.
Scientists are SUPPOSED to be skeptic, and I understand that this is not what the phrase is meant to convey, but the mere idea of labeling a scientists "skeptic" to smear him shows how political scientists in general have become. Remember when they were all about the pursuit of truth and knowledge?
I guess it sounds better than "denier", (which sounds like some McCarthy-era witch-hunt-ism), but why can't scientists keep their professionalism in situations which become politicized?
I found the claim that Opera was "catching up" in the summary spurious at best. Many of the features that Firefox has were developed first by the Opera team, including tabs.
Thank you Clinton.[/sarcasm]
It really is incredible. One company decided to take a hit on their stock price in order to do what they knew was better in the long run. Maybe not for them, but for the industry and the world in general.
And as a matter of posture, they knew that being loud and public would force the two governments to directly confront each other over the issue.
That would not be surprising at all. Simply continuing on in the great Chinese tradition of overtly stealing what they don't want to work for.
Uh, no... that's simply saying that it's 0.008 seconds less than star-rise to star-rise.
A sidereal day is about three and a half minutes less than a solar day.